Big Brother is Watching You

[Ombudsman]

As Orwell illustrated, that's largely a self-perpetuating, very profitable smokescreen. Rather, it's about the autocratic, militaristic, violent, prying, greedy, repressive bastards vs. the rest of us.[/color]

Good grief. What a drama queen.

[bannination]

Vrede is a drama queen, along with anyone that wants to do business in the U.S. using our infrastructure apparently. Must be technically illiterate companies. :-0?>

http://www.zdnet.com/prism-fallout-coul ... 000017712/

"Why would you pay someone else to hold your commercial or other secrets, if you suspect or know they are being shared against your wishes? Front or back door – it doesn't matter – any smart person doesn't want the information shared at all. Customers will act rationally, and providers will miss out on a great opportunity.

"If European cloud customers cannot trust the United States government or their assurances, then maybe they won't trust US cloud providers either. That is my guess. And if I am right then there are multi-billion euro consequences for American companies."

Article just called Ombudsman stupid.

[Ombudsman]

Vrede is a drama queen, along with anyone that wants to do business in the U.S. using our infrastructure apparently. Must be technically illiterate companies. :-0?>

http://www.zdnet.com/prism-fallout-coul ... 000017712/

"Why would you pay someone else to hold your commercial or other secrets, if you suspect or know they are being shared against your wishes? Front or back door – it doesn't matter – any smart person doesn't want the information shared at all. Customers will act rationally, and providers will miss out on a great opportunity.

"If European cloud customers cannot trust the United States government or their assurances, then maybe they won't trust US cloud providers either. That is my guess. And if I am right then there are multi-billion euro consequences for American companies."

Article just called Ombudsman stupid.

Anyone who is just now realizing the dangers of cloud storage, is probably the same kind of person who is wringing their hands over NSA surveillance. You're far more at risk of private hackers misusing your information than the NSA.

[Wneglia]

Apologies to Vrede, our resident petitionmeister, for beating him to this:

STOP WATCHING US

[Wneglia]

Did you sign it? I did.

June 18, page 15 :

OOPS.
Yes, I signed it.

[Ombudsman]

Did you sign it? I did.

June 18, page 15 :

OOPS.
Yes, I signed it.

So you guys will put your name and address on a server for a company headquartered in Canada, because you're concerned about your privacy?

[Ombudsman]

Yes, we choose what privacy to give up or not and don't want it being chosen for us because you're so afraid of the negligible odds that you'll be harmed by a terrorist.

So you trust a private company headquartered in another country more so than your own Dept. of Defense because of your negligible odds that NSA will throw you in prison? Sounds fairly stupid but at least it's your choice to be stupid.

[Ombudsman]

You signed a petition from a group that also opposes internet privacy. They oppose legislation that protects the intellectual property of private individuals. Good job Vrede. You're really changing the world. Tell us again how smart you are.

[Ombudsman]

You signed a petition from a group that also opposes internet privacy. They oppose legislation that protects the intellectual property of private individuals. Good job Vrede. You're really changing the world. Tell us again how smart you are.

Straw man diversion - Their position on a different topic is irrelevant.
Logical fallacy, guilt by association - I might as well be arguing that your adoration for NSA snooping means that you supported the Iraq War lies "from a group", the national security state, that does/did both.
"intellectual property" rights are different from privacy rights. Good job, Ombudsman, you've screwed-up again.

Tell us again what a critical thinker you are.

LOL - First of all, you really need to stop parroting words other people use until you figure out that they mean. But the fact is you signed a petition housed on a server for a company headquartered in another country, run by an organization that doesn't support Internet privacy. And you did it because you want privacy. If you can't see how fucking hilarious that is, there's really no hope for you. Run Vrede run.

[Guest2]

I did forget that I had posted ex-member's PM openly to prove that he had just lied, sorry.

...Why bring up an old foe anyway, Vrede, if your skill at debating is sufficient to the task? Do you need to smear to win? Character assassination indicates desperation on your part, as well as the lack of a cogent retort.

I'm not insulting you, nor am I planning to. I'm, therefore, not the poster that you seem to think that I am.

Yep, ex-member/Partisan62 practically begged me to prove him a liar even after I told him exactly how I would do so, he is that dumb.

This bitch sure whines a great deal, doesn't she? The quote above by "ex-member" shows how stupid Vrede is. The poster's commitment to no longer insult others sounds more like an attitude change, not a denial of identity. Such nuance is, of course, lost on a two dimensional idiot like Vrede. She obviously can't debate unless she plays it dirty and despicable, even now. If one has the skill and intelligence to debate, then who the hell cares what screen name is used or who is or isn't registered.
That Vrede whine is just the coward's way out.

Besides, if "ex-member" sent Vrede a PM and then posted under the name "ex-member", he had to KNOW that she knew who he was, right? Vrede got baited into a test of character and proved that she can't be trusted.

Even your fellow leftists, Ombudsman and Stinger, seem to agree. Read the first half of the quote; she really is incapable of debating without smearing, isn't she?

Now I predict she will whine and bitch some more. Please give me a minute while I grab some popcorn and settle back to watch her implode yet again.

[bannination]

Oh look, more experts disagree with Ombudsman.

While the arrest has been celebrated, civil rights advocates have complained that thousands of innocent drivers were also caught up in the police dragnet, and have questioned its legality. The argument might sound absurd to American ears — would Germans really rather be shot at than have their license plates recorded? — but Germans are more sensitive to government overreach than Americans. A rabid debate about security and privacy has begun.

As the Edward Snowden affair enters its second month, Americans don't seem to have much appetite for the subtlety of such a debate. The Prism leak discussion has been framed repeatedly as a zero-sum game, pitting privacy on one side and security on the other.

Liberty vs. control
"I've never liked the idea of security vs. privacy, because no one feels more secure in a surveillance state," said Bruce Schneier, security expert and author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Insecure World. "There's plenty of examples of security that doesn't infringe on privacy. They are all around. Door locks. Fences ... Firewalls. People are forgetting that quite a lot of security doesn't affect privacy. The real dichotomy is liberty vs. control."

Does anyone really support Ombudsman's position other than the government?

[Ombudsman]

Run Vrede Run!

[Wneglia]

Exclusive: Obama’s NSA Operates on Two Sets of Books. Who is Watching the Watchers?

[O Really]

"supervision" by rubber stamp GOP foxes guarding the hen house.

Who would you find satisfactory to be the hen house guard?

You've asked that before. First, I'd rebuild the henhouse by getting rid of the PATRIOT Act rotten wood. Then, I'd listen closely to the ACLU and other patriotic lovers of the Constitution and its ideals as to how to better balance security with our rights. It's not like Barack is going to ask me for detailed plans, we keep it strictly to basketball and beer.

Your answer reminds me of the story of the engineer, architect, and economist stranded on a desert island with nothing to eat but a case of canned beans. The engineer determined that if they built a fire and heated the cans sufficiently, the cans would explode and they could eat the beans. The architect pointed out that unless they built some sort of structure around the beans, that the explosion would simply send the beans all over the beach. The economist hadn't said anything yet, so the other two asked him what he would do. He said, "Well, first, I'd assume a can opener."

[O Really]

Swim out and grab some hard sharp coral to open the cans with. Or, eat the economist and ponder the beans for awhile.

The joke assumes that we already have the best we can do and no one, other than a labor law lawyer and an activist healthcare worker, is around with a realistic better idea how to do it. Instead, our island has:

Mark Udall, Ron Wyden Introduce Bill Limiting Federal Government's Authority To Collect Data

IMNVHO, that sort of legislation - not that it's going to pass - would only increase the chances that somebody who is not a "terrorist" (and I wonder how they define that term) can be labeled on simply to get around the data collection restriction.

But no, my economist joke did not assume we have the best we can do. You have identified the main problem - PATRIOT - and I'll stand with you to get it dumped. However, although I think some other parts may be eventually found to be unconstitutional, its chances of getting dumped in entirety are nonexistent.

Besides, do Udall and Wyden really think that the only law enforcement activity the feds engage in is regarding "terrorists"?

[Ombudsman]

Besides, do Udall and Wyden really think that the only law enforcement activity the feds engage in is regarding "terrorists"?

That's what's so silly about Vrede's comments about the "negligible chance of being killed by terrorists". It's as if she thinks the NSA is only targeting middle eastern guys with pipe bombs in their backpacks. You have a negligible chance of being struck by lightening but that's largely due to people choosing to remove themselves from places where they are likely to get struck by lighting. You have a negligible chance of drowning in your bath tub but you're still not going to leave your toddler unsupervised around one that's full of water. Vrede is okay willingly placing her name and address on a petition hosted on a website for a company headquartered in another country, sponsored by a group who actively works against internet privacy, yet is fearful her own department of defense is out to get her, despite that very negligible chance.

If the fear is of misuse of data, the only real solution is stop creating it by going off the grid. If you're going to keep using it then it's just matter of picking who you trust more, your own defense department or various domestic and foreign companies.

[O Really]

Sure, we will always have some security regimen, better PATRIOT or an alternative are a couple of ways.

Mark Udall and Ron Wyden are examples of people with better ideas than me that I will "listen closely to". I'm not informed enough to comment on the specifics of their proposals. But, I don't understand your question. Of course they don't but the NSA snooping is being sold to us as being solely about terrorism.

It seems to me that if I were an FBI agent trying to find a kidnapped person or the one who kidnapped and/or killed her, that I'd really like to have some searchable analytic tool to identify everybody she'd contacted on her phone, and everybody those people had contacted, etc. as one starting point to find her. If I get those records in the form the phone company keeps them, it would appear there's too much data to use, from a practical standpoint, in a hurry.

[O Really]

In your example a warrant can be gotten from an accountable, non-rubber stamp judge or family permission would negate the need for one.

Family permission to look at her personal phone - if you found it. A warrant to look at her phone records, after response from the phone company. Not so much for the records of those she had contact with, and those they had contact with...yada. Anyway, it's just an example of how such data could be useful.

[O Really]

In your example a warrant can be gotten from an accountable, non-rubber stamp judge or family permission would negate the need for one.

"Rubber stamp judge" seems to have a negative connotation. Do you suppose there might be other reasons for the low rejection rate? Like a low legal threshhold? Or lawyers who know what will be accepted and draw their requests accordingly? To actually be a "rubber stamp judge," one would have to pretty much OK everything that crossed the desk, whether it met the legal criteria or not. Maybe that's what they do. Examples?

[O Really]

So the answer to the question "are any of those 20,909 approvals outside what the law allows" would be "I don't know." Right? As much as I hate to speak nicely of Republican judges, or Republicans in general, I think it's more likely the problem is a too-low threshhold, not (generally) judges approving improper requests. I also note that in the article it stated that several hundred of the requests were "modified" by the judges. It also stated that there were more withdrawn than denied.